On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 9:54 AM Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 6:41 AM Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 1. 7. 25 10:03, dsahlb...@apache.org wrote: > > > Author: dsahlberg > > > Date: Tue Jul 1 08:03:29 2025 > > > New Revision: 1926891 > > > > > > URL:http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1926891&view=rev > > > Log: > > > It seems to be consensus on dev@ that we should name the next release > > 1.5, so > > > the CMake build system's first apperance will be in 1.5. > > > > > > * README > > > CMake is included as of 1.5. > > > > > > Modified: > > > serf/trunk/README > > > > > > Modified: serf/trunk/README > > > URL: > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/serf/trunk/README?rev=1926891&r1=1926890&r2=1926891&view=diff > > > > > > ============================================================================== > > > --- serf/trunk/README (original) > > > +++ serf/trunk/README Tue Jul 1 08:03:29 2025 > > > @@ -23,14 +23,25 @@ the same features. > > > > > > 1.1.1 SCons build system > > > > > > -You must use at least SCons version 2.3. If it is not installed > > > +You must use at least SCons version 2.3.5. If it is not installed > > > > > > In that case, you must update SConstruct, too. > > > > Just a reminder, again -- I would not recommend to use Scons 2.3.x or > > 3.x these days because it has a hard dependency on Python 2. We have a > > builder that proves it works, but it goes out of its way to install > > Python as well as SCons. > > > > Maybe its time we stopped pretending this will work indefinitely. It > > works in 1.3.x, maybe leave the requirement there for 1.5 but bump to > > SCons 4 on trunk. (Or just bump SCons, depending on what we decide wrt > > the build system). > > > > > IMHO supporting Python 2 can only get more difficult with time. > Eventually it may become hard to build or install Python 2 on modern > systems. The added friction will be a disincentive for devs to invest > time in it. So, yes, unless Someone (tm) steps forward to maintain > that, it makes sense to phase out support for Python 2. Leaving it for > 1.5 and moving forward on trunk seems reasonable to me. > Seems very appropriate to say "Py2 was EOL'd a decade ago. If you want that, then use serf 1.3 ... 1.5 *builds* require py3". Note that we're talking about packaging/building. Not necessarily the runtime environment. I could not explain why our build system requires py2, for any modern packager. Cheers, -g
